LGBT Fight Comes To Orthodoxy

Orthodox Patriarchate of Belgrade holds 2016 march in support of traditional Christian teachings on sexuality (Orthodox Church YouTube)

I was at a conference this past weekend at an Orthodox Christian seminary, and met a lot of interesting fellow Orthodox believers, both clergy and laity, from all over the country. I picked up from more than a few people great concern about the current move within US Orthodoxy to embrace and affirm homosexuality.

“Did you see that piece about the Lutherans in First Things?” someone said to me. I had not. I read it later. Its author, Robert Benne, is part of a Lutheran church that in 2010 separated from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America over its decision to bless formally gay unions. Benne recalls in his piece the 2018 ELCA youth assembly in Houston, and an address that ELCA superstar Nadia Bolz-Weber (whose first book some years back I genuinely enjoyed) gave to the Lutheran kids:

This year, concluding her speech, she employed a blasphemous parody of the set of renunciations that parents or godparents are ex­pected to answer at a baptism: “Do you renounce the devil and all his empty promises?” One renunciation went: “Do you renounce the lie that Queerness is anything other than beauty?” And the youths dutifully chanted back: “I renounce them.” So the crowd was led to reject Christian teaching that homosexual orientation is “objectively disordered” and that acting upon it is sinful. Those who held classic Christian views became purveyors of the devil’s lies. That judgment fell upon those in the ELCA who, ­previously, were guaranteed a place in the church if their “bound conscience” held them to traditional Christian teaching. That promise, we see now, was bogus. It merely allowed local pastors and congregations of a traditional bent to persist in their retrograde beliefs, while all agencies and institutions of the church beyond the local level enforced the progressive verdicts of the 2009 assembly. No public dissenter could get a position or keep one at the higher level.

Benne notes another keynote address, one from Tuhina Verma Rasche, a female ELCA pastor who was raised Hindu. He writes:

Rasche has notoriety as a blogger and networker of #Decolonize­Lutheranism. Her blog is a bit hard to believe; it features two Advent devotionals entitled “F*** This S**t” and “#ShuttheHellup.” Her blogs carry wonderful messages such as “The ‘American Dream’ is code to hold on to white supremacy” and “Whiteness is such a hell of a drug, white people are willing to blow up the entire f***ing world in order to maintain white supremacy.” Those remarks are clues as to what #Decolonize­Lutheranism is all about. Here is an exhortation from its webpage: “The time has come for marginalized communities to lead our church into the 21st century—people of color, the disabled, all genders (women, trans, and non-conforming), sexualities, ages, incarceration or immigration or citizenship status, and others.” This liberation from the church’s Eurocentric whiteness must be engineered by a task force that is 100 percent people of color or people who speak a language other than English.

More:

These two keynoters not only reject traditional Christian notions of sexual identity; they also challenge classic teachings on sexual morality. Both signed a petition that was concocted by an organization called “Naked and Unashamed” (I’m not making this up) based at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, where I (blushingly) taught for seventeen years. The petition calls for the ELCA to stop “privileging marriage as the only acceptable form of sexual relationality” and to start “editing out language that perpetuates heteronormativity and sexual oppression” from its guiding documents. Fortunately, neither spoke about their notions of sexual morality to the ­hormone-driven teenagers who cheered them on. Needless to say, both support Planned Parenthood and a woman’s “right to choose.”

Another keynote address featured an ELCA pastor’s wife and their 11-year-old son who has transitioned to living as a girl. They were held up as icons.

Benne concludes his piece:

I want to alert those churches that have not “evolved” [on sexuality and gender] to the dangers of doing just that. Once orthodoxy is breached on these issues, the process won’t stop there. It will lead to sharper denials of the apostolic faith. The revolution will eat its own children. There really is a slippery slope.

I had a number of conversations at the conference with Orthodox converts who came to Orthodoxy out of churches that had surrendered orthodox Christian teaching on sexuality, and which had since begun sliding into moral and theological disarray. As a former Catholic, I talked about how Catholicism is rapidly following Mainline Protestantism down this path, especially under Pope Francis. Talking last week to a Catholic friend about this, I told her that this fight has now come to Orthodoxy. She said, “Please don’t give in; you guys are the last place left.”

As you gather in prayer and brotherhood during the first week of October, we the undersigned respectfully propose that the Assembly, its individual member bishops, and their respective jurisdictions and dioceses consider taking the following steps:

1). Cease issuing condemnations of abortion, participating in the March for Life, and advocating for the elimination of legal, accessible abortion.

Instead, create a committee of clergy, laypersons, and especially women to explore options for a pan-Orthodox initiative to offer financial, material, emotional, spiritual, and social support to pregnant women in need and to their children after birth.

The reality of the world in which we live also requires the Church’s support for the surest means to reduce the incidence of abortion: universal access to contraception and to accurate, scientifically based sex education.

Finally, it is important to listen to women’s reasons for having an abortion and to work with them to mitigate those reasons when they are open to doing so. Judging, condemning, marching in parades, and attending Rose Dinners accomplish nothing and don’t save a single child’s or woman’s life.

2).Cease issuing condemnations of same-sex orientation.

These condemnations inflict lasting emotional and spiritual harm on Orthodox children, teens, and adults who regard their orientation as a good and natural part of their personal identity. They seek from their Church, not a cover for sexual permissiveness, but a profound and affirmative theological articulation of how their orientation reflects the divine image and participates in the acquisition of the divine likeness through the collaboration of human ascesis with uncreated grace.

Instead, create a committee of clergy, theologians, psychologists, therapists, laypersons, and especially Orthodox individuals who identify as same-sex oriented to study questions of sexual orientation in all their complexity.

The committee should be open to examining possibilities for blessing Orthodox same-sex couples who wish to make a monogamous, lifelong commitment to each other.

The committee should also be tasked with formulating pastoral guidelines to present for the Assembly’s consideration.

The blanket excommunication of Orthodox Christians who present as same-sex oriented must cease.

3). Remove from the websites of the Assembly, its member jurisdictions, and each jurisdiction’s individual dioceses all past condemnations of same-sex orientation.

Once again, these condemnations inflict lasting emotional and spiritual harm on those targeted by them.

Arguably these condemnations inflict even greater emotional and spiritual harm on those targeted than condemnations of same-sex orientation. It has been demonstrated statistically that transgender persons comprise one of society’s most vulnerable demographics.

We as Church have not even begun to examine—let alone understand—the complex interplay of emotional, spiritual, psychological, social, and even biological factors that lead a person to identify as transgender and then to commence his or her transition to the gender opposite the one assigned at birth. Indeed some persons experience themselves as having both genders or neither gender.

Others are born intersex, which means that their biological bodies possess some configuration of both male and female organs, whether externally, internally, or both.

Rather than deride them we must seek first to love them and to hear them.

Create a committee of clergy, theologians, psychologists, therapists, laypersons, and especially Orthodox individuals who identify as transgender or intersex to study questions of gender identity and its relationship to the body.

The committee should be open to examining possibilities for blessing Orthodox transgender and intersex persons to form a monogamous, lifelong commitment with the partner of their choice.

The committee should also be tasked with formulating pastoral guidelines to present for the Assembly’s consideration.

The blanket excommunication of Orthodox Christians who present as transgender or intersex must cease.

5). Authorize, endorse, and sponsor—as an official, permanent ministry of the Assembly—an international support organization for Orthodox Christians who identify anywhere along the LGBTQI spectrum.

Orthodoxy in Dialogue stands prepared to offer our services to the Assembly, and to our brothers and sisters everywhere, to bring together a small committee to reach out to LGBTQI Orthodox Christians and begin laying the groundwork for this important ministry.

The term “dialogue” (along with its synonyms, “conversation” and “discussion” and “engagement”) seems to have taken its place alongside the proverbial terms “motherhood”, “apple pie”, and “the flag” as sacred and untouchable. It used to be that no one in their right mind would speak against this Trinity of American values, and now no one is allowed to suggest that anything bearing the sacred word “dialogue” should be viewed with suspicion. A commitment to dialogue is considered an essential part of civilization, and a sign of one’s tolerance, reasonableness, and open-mindedness. Anyone lacking a sufficient commitment to these modern virtues (the new Trinity of American values) is a fitting candidate for denunciation and insult. If you think this last sentiment is too strong, you probably do not own a computer or go online very much.

One could almost formulate a spiritual law that any site or online contribution which contains the D-word or its synonyms is pushing the same basic agenda. Take for example the site, “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” (with D-word prominently displayed) or the site “Public Orthodoxy” (which says that it “seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity”). Like other liberal sites these are dedicated to the destruction of traditional Orthodox belief and praxis. Obviously no site hoping to gain traction among fellow-Orthodox will advertise this agenda and goal. Like all deconstructionist movements, other softer terms must be found—usually using multi-syllabic words, which is almost always a bad sign.

There is no dialogue to be had. None. Nor is there an escape from confrontation. Orthodox bishops hate conflict, and would rather avoid it, but they have to draw a firm, clear line in the sand here. If they don’t, there is no doubt where this is going to take the Orthodox churches in the United States. Look at the Mainline Protestant churches. Look at what’s happening to many Catholic parishes and institutions, especially under this papacy.

To enter into this phony “dialogue” is to prepare to surrender. There can be no surrender. There must not be surrender. But listen: if you’re a priest or a deacon, and think you can avoid taking a stand, you had better wise up. As the pro-gay Protestant theologian David Gushee wrote in 2016:

It turns out that you are either for full and unequivocal social and legal equality for LGBT people, or you are against it, and your answer will at some point be revealed. This is true both for individuals and for institutions.

Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.

He’s right. He’s on the other side of the issue from me, but he’s right. The Orthodox bishops must step up and defend Christian orthodoxy within Orthodoxy. They have to hold the line. Neutrality and avoidance — peace at any price — is surrender.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 138 comments

138 Responses to LGBT Fight Comes To Orthodoxy

I’ve said it before and I’ll no doubt say it again: the closet was the best deal they were ever going to get, and they’re not going to like what happens next.

It’s precisely because of what is going to happen next to people who aren’t homosexual and do not morally approve of homosexuality that what is ultimately going to happen to homosexuals is going to happen to them.

Rod, I wouldn’t be as quick as your Catholic friend to give up on the Catholic Church. As the Anglicans found out, the Africans don’t roll over so easily, and where one part of the universal Church remains solid, it can pull the rest back (think St. Athanasius). In addition, the McCarrick revelations have made a lot of people more aware of what is going on, and there is a reaction. Unlike mainline Protestant churches, the Catholic Church is not so tied to one country, so even if the US Catholic Church does eventually go down, there will always be a remnant of faithful, according to our Lord’s promise.

Margaret: “There has been a lot more happening to other (so-called) Christian denominations than just the inability to follow the teachings of Christ….The Orthodox Christian Church will continue to teach and hold tradition of the teachings of Jesus Christ crucified and the resurrection.”

I’m a sane man living in a world gone mad, and I am capable of stepping back from the particularities of this historical moment to observe the broader trends of which it is a part, in relation to the unchanging nature of reality and the human person.

Theresa, Eastern Christebdom has always had a limited tolerance divorce and remarriage. This is not some concession to modernity. And, really,if you survey the religions of the world, Rome stands alone in its absolutism in divorce

Raskolnik said, “I’m a sane man living in a world gone mad, and I am capable of stepping back from the particularities of this historical moment to observe the broader trends of which it is a part, in relation to the unchanging nature of reality and the human person.”

That must be very disconcerting. There are some very nice people who can get you appropriate medications for that. Also arrange a safe place while you sort it all out.

Anastasios, I fail to see the sinfulness in civil SSM per se. It isn’t a civil contract that’s a sin; it’s the sex. If someone were living chastely in such an arrangement where would the sin be? And I for one am very glad our Church is not full of the petty melodramas of the moment. I go to touch eternal things, not listen to the news. I can debate all those things here, and I would flee any church that became a political action committee with a chaplain. Again, I wish I could find Khouriya Fredrica’s old Beliefnet piece touching on Orthodoxy and the culture wars. She said it so much better than I can.

Without getting into a long and involved discussion, I personally agree that civil SSM per se should not be a bar to full church participation. But, I am aware that others, such as evidently Brendan, see things differently. I think the large majority of Orthodox, including priests and I suspect most Bishops, agree that it is best to avoid political melodrama. Which is why I suspect these matters will on the whole be handled quietly and locally, and that the Bishops would much prefer it that way without having to take divisive public actions. Unfortunately, divisive action seems to be the direction in which some people want to push (including, I am sorry to say, Rod with his fondness for clear and ringing statements of doctrinal principle and firm policing of community boundaries).

What a banal, ignorant, pompous question. I disagree with Raskolnik on almost EVERYTHING, and I don’t see this aspect of the future playing out the way he does, but he made a very rational and plausible observation on how things MIGHT go. You score no points by asking a hollow one-liner, which merely denotes ‘Why don’t you see the world my way?’ Now, if YOU would care to detail what YOU think is wrong with his argument (not with him personally) there might be something for all of us to think about.

The Catholics don’t “allow” divorce but they have an annulment process where they declare that the divorced couple were never licitly married.

Which in practice is merely a concession to the spirit of the age, decked out in a way that preserves the fig leaf of doctrinal adherence. It is dishonest in the extreme.

The good deacon is right, female ordination is at the tip of the spear as far as secularization *within* Orthodoxy. Behind the “culture wars” is secularization. The “deaconess” movement is a carrier of the Justice & Equality virtue regime of secularization and it is this secular virtue that they are pressing, not any actual “need” for the female diaconate that does have a real if small historical basis within the Church.

Raskolnik anticipates that the LGBTQWERTY will become so overbearing and threatening that a substantial majority of the heteronormative majority will lose their acceptance of homosexuality generally and conclude that its a good idea to eliminate gays from the face of the earth, or drive them deep underground trembling with fear at being discovered.

Right, that’s what I said: he seems to be envisioning a forceful or violent reversal of the cultural acceptance of gays. I wonder why he doesn’t spell it out this way himself.

Right, that’s what I said: he seems to be envisioning a forceful or violent reversal of the cultural acceptance of gays. I wonder why he doesn’t spell it out this way himself.

He did. You’re being dense because you don’t want to deal with the fact that someone of normal intelligence sees some possibility of this happening. You asked how this might happen, so I summarized what I found to be obvious in the original comment.

Behind the “culture wars” is secularization. The “deaconess” movement is a carrier of the Justice & Equality virtue regime of secularization and it is this secular virtue that they are pressing, not any actual “need” for the female diaconate that does have a real if small historical basis within the Church.

It strikes me as dangerous to presume that everyone who sees merit in a female diaconate is pushing such an agenda. No doubt, some are, and it would also be foolish to pretend nobody has such a though on their mind.

The latter is an instance of the Great Homogenization, which I believe any person who believes in a constitutional republican government should resist. It is simply not true that peace and freedom and justice and equality require that EVERYONE think the same way about EVERYTHING and that EVERY institution should have IDENTICAL rules.

Women and men can both vote in the United States. Why? Because we have a bona fide constitutional amendment that says so. That doesn’t mean every religious faith MUST have women priests, or deacons. There are any number of liturgical reasons why a given body of revelation or doctrine might consider a woman unsuited for that particular role. An engineering firm can get sued for refusing to hire a qualified female applicant. A church cannot.

Nonetheless, there are any number of innocent reasons why a women raised in and confirmed in a church that maintains a male priesthood might aspire to serve God in this capacity. Its not all culture wars. There are many ways to deal with this, and its up to the individual religious body to make its decision. A woman might be moved to accept the authority of her church, or might be moved to seek another church where she can serve as clergy. There is a certain give and take to that, and its purely voluntary, not a matter for government regulation.

You asked how this might happen, so I summarized what I found to be obvious in the original comment.

No, Raskolnik said gays would not like “what happens next,” and I asked what happens next, i.e. what threat he’s implying. Then I asked him and Scuds if they were saying the cultural acceptance of gays could be reversed by force or violence, and “How exactly would that work?” Not what would motivate it; how would it be done? What’s the mechanism? Thanks for clarifying that the mechanism is the same as Hitler’s. That was not obvious in Raskolnik’s comment.

Actually, the Catholic Church does allow legal, civil divorce – for grave reasons (like, spousal/child abuse). She just doesn’t recognize civil divorce anymore than she recognizes civil marriages. Those are State matters, not Church matters.

Fr. Hans: “… but they have an annulment process where they declare that the divorced couple were never licitly married. It protects the doctrine but the fact is the couple is still divorced.”

And that civil divorce is still not recognized. That’s a State matter, which is neccessary only because Catholics must obey the civil laws where they live. It has nothing to do with whether or not a marriage was valid and sacramental.

Fr. Hans: “From the Orthodox side declaring that the divorced couple is not really divorced because they never were really married is a doctrinal fiction. It seems to make sense in Rome but not anywhere else.”

Again, there is no such “declaration that the divorced couple is not really divorced.” The couple is legally and civilly divorced according to the State. The Church is only interested in whether or not the marriage (which took place in the Church), was valid and sacramental. The marriage is always presumed to be licit unless and until evidence is brought forth to the contrary. So unless the couple seeks an investigation by the marriage tribunal, they are STILL married in the eyes of the Church, regardless of whether they have a civil divorce or not.

Could you please explain why you think a civil State divorce has anything to do with whether or not a valid, sacramental marriage occurred? Does the State make the marriage sacramental, and then can “undo” that just by granting a civil divorce? Do the Orthodox not recognize that there are impediments to contracting a valid, sacramental marriage (when even Scripture does)? Impediments like, fraud? Already being married to someone else? Inability to consummate the marriage? Lack of free consent? Too closely related? Refusal to be open to children (even taking steps to prevent conception)? The presence of a “divorce mentality” (I.e., “If it doesn’t work out, well just get a divorce”)? Catholics trying to “marry” unbaptized non-Christians?

How is the recognition that impediments do exist that can prevent a valid, sacramental marriage from taking place, a “doctrinal fiction”?

Granted, the number of annulments granted today (especially in the USA) is a scandal, but OTOH, we do live in a culture where children are not welcomed, and where “no-fault” divorce can be a remedy “if it doesn’t work out” – all of which can prevent a sacramental marriage – which is a lifetime commitment where children are welcomed – from the get-go.

I see no “doctrinal fiction.” Only very poorly catechized (especially on marriage) Catholics who aren’t able to contract a valid, sacramental marriage from the start – and all-too-willing priests who witness to those “marriages” when they never should have. So maybe you can explain where the “doctrinal fiction” comes in, because the only “fiction” I see is the idea that there are no impediments to contracting a valid, sacramental marriage, and the idea that Man is strong enough to break apart (through civil “divorce”) what God has joined together in a valid, sacramental marriage.

Christopher, I disagree with you, and Deacon Nicholas on the deaconess issue. Please consider (again!) that the concept of restoration (note: NOT innovation) dates back well before the current era, and was embraced by some we now venerate as saints, notably St. Elizabeth the New Martyr. Not everything must be filtered through the lens of the passing conflicts of the day, which things are brief and soon pass. Indeed, in dealing with the things of the Church we shouldcl resist the temptation to let Today hold away and isn’t that the exact error that the Modernists make?

Fr. Hans: “The Catholics don’t “allow” divorce but they have an annulment process where they declare that the divorced couple were never licitly married.”

Siarlys J: “Which in practice is merely a concession to the spirit of the age, decked out in a way that preserves the fig leaf of doctrinal adherence. It is dishonest in the extreme.”

I’ve already responded to the inaccuracies in Fr. Hans’ statements, so I won’t repeat myself here. Your accusation of “dishonesty” is a serious charge, however, and deserves a response.

Annulments are based on the Scriptural teaching that there do exist impediments to contracting a valid marriage (even civil laws regarding marriage recognize certain impediments). This Scriptural (and/or ecclesiastical) recognition of impediments is not from “the spirit of the age” – though it can be said that couples can be so influenced by “the spirit of the age” as to render them incapable of entering into a sacramental marriage.

And while there may be dishonesty on the side of the person(s) seeking an annulment (like, telling the Tribunal their parents forced them to marry), and even on the side of the particular diocesan Tribunal (like, lacking objectivity in favor of bias for granting the annulment), to accuse the whole concept of investigating whether or not impediments were present at the beginning with being “dishonest in the extreme” only demonstrates a presumption to know what one cannot know. No one can know everything about every couple, particularly what impediments May have been present when they said “I do.”

As for “doctrinal adherence” – the existence of impediments (both from Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law) to contracting a sacramental marriage are very much a part of the Catholic Church’s doctrines on marriage. The possibility of those impediments should be discussed between the couple and their priest BEFORE they say “I do.” That couples may not disclose any known impediments, or that the priest knew and witnessed to the “marriage” anyway, (perhaps thinking if he refused they might leave the Church or something), must be investigated on a case by case basis…

…rather than issuing a blanket accusation of “dishonesty” against everyone involved.

There’s, I understand that it’s remarriage part that is the most problematic but that does not change my comment in that Rome stands pretty much alone in the matter, and always did. The annulment framework exists because powerful men were still putting wives aside well into the Middle Ages (example: King Canute dumping his first wife when Emma of Normandy dangled the crown of England in front of him) and the Church had to a accommodate that reality just as the Eastern Church did.
The brute fact is that some marriages fail and that alone should be proof that the marriage failed to “take” pretending otherwise is like poor Juana La Loca (Ferdinand and Isabella’s unhappy daughter) hauling her husband’s corpse everywhere with her and pretending that he was still alive.

The proponents of the “restoration” of the female diaconate are not proposing a “restoration” at all. On the contrary, they are explicitly (cf. the body of work of Dr. Carrie Frost and Dr. Valerie A. Karras – two principles of St. Phoebe Center) admitting that the ancient canonical limitations of the deaconess to widows and virgins, above a certain age (40 in one case, 60 in the others), and having no liturgical function besides assisting in the baptism of naked adult female catechumens (another ancient custom that is no longer), is not applicable for “today”. They then go on to explicitly argue for a modern female diaconate that is composed of females of any age, married or unmarried, and is a mirror of the liturgical/theologically trained male deacon of the modern era.

In other words they admit that this is a reform and not a “restoration” as such. They however continue to use the term, because for them the term “restoration” can include these reforms as a kind of natural development which is a proper response to the Church in its historical situation “today”.

Also, they explicitly argue that the modern *moral context* the Church finds herself in requires an adjustment to her praxis – namely in response to how Justice and Equality in modern western civilization is understood in terms of the sexual binary.

I am not making any of this up – this is their explicit position. You could start with the transcripts of St. Phoebe’s 2017 conference available on their website. No offense intended, but you appear to have a “talking points” grasp of this issue, one which the movement itself has self consciously moved past…

Annulments are based on the Scriptural teaching that there do exist impediments to contracting a valid marriage (even civil laws regarding marriage recognize certain impediments).

Yup. And while there is no Scriptural basis for annulment, I don’t object to it as a reasonable escape valve. Its not explicitly prohibited by Scripture either.

But that would be a relatively rare circumstance, and handled with care, objectivity, and probity.

Historically, anullments have been granted when a highly placed person found it convenient for diplomatic or dynastic reasons, and had a good connection with church authorities willing to please. Henry VIII failed to get a divorce because Catherine of Aragon’s nephew was the Pope’s primary military protector.

In modern times, anullment is dispersed wholesale to keep the church not too much out of line with civil law, and let people remarry in the church rather than force them to marry outside the church. One of the sardonically funny results was the man who married in a Lutheran church, had a child, civilly divorced, then wanted to marry a Catholic woman, so the church is sitting in a parody of grave consideration as to whether the Catholic Church found a impediment in a first marriage in a Lutheran church, and the child is left wondering, if my parents’ marriage is annulled, does that mean I’m illegitimate?

The whole thing is a farce, in practice, and more of a farce due to the considered and humane basis on which the practice of annullment exists, within a conception that marriage is for life. The impediment generally comes down to, ‘I don’t love her anymore, and come to think of it, I probably never did.’

Then I asked him and Scuds if they were saying the cultural acceptance of gays could be reversed by force or violence,

Jefferson Smith, this is the kernel of your conceptual error. Raskolnik posited that reversal of the cultural acceptance of gays could occur due to violence and intimidation by the LGBTQWERTY agenda, and the RESULT of this reversal might well be force and violence against gays and lesbians. It is an outcome devoutly to be resisted, but that takes some good will all around.

The Orthodox Church appears to be the last holdout. If they don’t make the stand, the West will fall into complete depravity and madness. How can anyone hope to right the ship without something that serves as a moral foundation? Without the heft of a religious belief system, with what shall we push back? In case anyone missed it, FACTS ARE HATE and TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE.

Look at us. For God’s sake, what the hell have we become?

We celebrate hypersexualized 9-year-old boys dressing up like drag queens and being openly leered at by grown men. We invite drag queens into kindergartens. Two catholic priests are found performing felatio on one another in a car on a public street in broad daylight in full view of passers-by… and we’re relieved that at least they’re both adults.

We encourage very young children to believe they’re “transsexual” and then we deliberately sterilize them for life before they’ve even gone through puberty. Children who are not old enough to drink, to drive, or to make any other decision for themselves are encouraged to permanently forego normal sexual development and the ability to have children of their own.

We have doctors cutting off their patient’s healthy sex organs, putting them at risk of death, infections, and terrible medical complications, paid for by unwilling tax payers and insurance companies, while the health care system is bankrupting the country.

Male-to-female transsexuals have decreed that straight men are obligated to date them or they’re guilty of discrimination, a charge that can get you fired from your job and viciously rejected by your friends and even your own family; the same punishment awaits anyone who questions whether such transsexuals should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms or shower facilities.

Merit and competence are symptoms of privilege that have to be denounced and eradicated everywhere. Not even air traffic controllers are immune; superior mathematics ability is a symptom of white supremacy and patriarchy.

The progressive left has become an unhinged, hysterical lynch mob rampaging through all of our cultural institutions. And I do NOT mean that figuratively; just watch a few unsanitized clips of SJW’s in action if you have any doubt about that statement. No one is safe, not even children. No one can stand against them, not even the towering intellectual giants with all the facts of science and history behind them.

And while this goes on, our government is busy building a police state around us. We are becoming the Union of the Soviet States of America. What an incredibly bitter irony to have won the Cold War only to end up living under the same political system anyway—the same system that was denounced as a murderous, poisonous failure by the Soviets themselves.

If the Orthodox Church gives way on homosexuality, on the place of men in the church, on the primacy of the natural family, or on abortion, the church will fall.

Either church teachings are divine and unchanging, or they are based on nothing special. The Catholic Church has only a small group of actual believers left, mostly laity, backed up in a corner and fighting for their spiritual life. There you will go too if you fail to see that the armies have already laid siege to you.

Educated, upper class citizens openly call for men to be castrated and cheer for genocide of the white race. Do you really believe these people are going to compromise with you?

When the Church embraces homosexuality, it rejects its own values: self control, sacrifice of self for the benefit of others, children as the center of life, sexual behavior tightly constrained, the union of a man and woman into a complementary unit. Homosexuality isn’t just incompatible; it’s alien.

“Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.”

I have nothing against homosexuals, but accepting them into civil society does not require accepting them into the Church. How do you justify a man with 500 sexual partners being in good standing in any Orthodox or Catholic Church?

Jefferson Smith, this is the kernel of your conceptual error. Raskolnik posited that reversal of the cultural acceptance of gays could occur due to violence and intimidation by the LGBTQWERTY agenda, and the RESULT of this reversal might well be force and violence against gays and lesbians.

Ah, got it. It’s not just a genocidal impulse, it’s also extreme paranoia. Good to know. Certainly a much more attractive package that way.

There will always be groups whose agenda you oppose. The civilized response to this is to set about countering those groups politically. If you imagine that there’s this one group, gay people, that is so overwhelmingly threatening that political responses are useless and the only recourse is mass killing, then yes, I would call that a rather severe case of paranoia. (It also won’t work, because the only way a small minority like gay people could wield such outsize power is if they had plenty of allies and the broad support of the society at large. In which case, you have too many opponents to have a reasonable hope of killing them all; if you try it, they’re more likely to kill you first.)

Siarlys J: “And while there is no Scriptural basis for annulment, I don’t object to it as a reasonable escape valve. Its not explicitly prohibited by Scripture either.”

Catholics don’t go by Scripture alone, so we don’t need a Scriptural basis for “annulment.” Regardless of what one wants to call a declaration nullify when impediments are discovered to have been present, the basis, as I said, is the fact that impediments to contracting a valid marriage exist. And we can clearly see those impediments in Scripture.

S.J.: “Henry VIII failed to get a divorce because Catherine of Aragon’s nephew was the Pope’s primary military protector.”

An annulment isn’t a divorce. Henry couldn’t get a divorce or annulment because he had already appealed to the pope to remove the only impediment that existed, so that he could marry Catherine in the first place (she was related to him by marriage to his dead brother). Thus, his marriage to Catherine couldn’t be annulled since the only impediment (consanguinity by marriage) had already been removed. Those are the actual facts, with don’t jive with your scenario.

S.J.: “In modern times, anullment is dispersed wholesale to keep the church not too much out of line with civil law…”

If the Church wanted to do that, then she would just recognize the civil divorce and wouldn’t bother with impediments and annulments. But you’re entitled to your opinion, however far from the facts it is.

S.J.: “…the child is left wondering, if my parents’ marriage is annulled, does that mean I’m illegitimate?”

Gee, I wonder why they don’t think they suddenly became “illegitimate” when their parents got civilly divorced? Maybe it’s because most people know that legitimacy is the status of children born to parents who were legally married to each other at the time of the child’s birth or were conceived before the parents obtained a legal divorce.

An annulment doesn’t change the fact the parents were LEGALLY MARRIED according to civil law before they got a legal, civil divorce. An annulment says nothing about legal, civil marriages – it’s about a licit, sacramental marriage.

The rest of your post is simply your opinion, to which you are entitled – regardless of the actual facts.

Christopher, we have records that show deaconesses and even subdeaconesses served in the sanctuary at Hagia Sophia so be careful stating that they had no liturgical function. IMO, a larger issue here would be the revival of not just the female diaconate, but the assorted minor orders in general, and yes those ought be extended to women. The current practice if having untonsured lay people assist in the sanctuary is what runs counter to our original tradition. And overall I will reiterate that your fears about modernism are themselves a form of modernism. To all of which I say that the best answer is simply Christ’s to Peter: “what if it?Follow me!”

Theresa, popes gave out annulments like candy to rulers back in those days. The political situation (re: the Italian Wars) was the reason Clement had to turn Henry down. The canon law faculties of all the universities of Europe all agreed that Hebry had the better case given existing precedent.

One final reply from me and I will give you the last word. At this point your simply asserting your beliefs. Your assertions about what occurred in Hagia Sophia are debatable, and rely on a number of assumptions from some scholars which you have uncritically appropriated. I actually have little doubt that deaconess served a liturgical function at some point in some places in some time, but these would be the exceptions that prove the rule. The Church never normalized such activity and this is incontrovertible. A few small exceptions does not make an argument for a “restoration”.

“untonsured lay people”? I don’t think you understand the basics on this, your not making sense.

The assertion of “fear” and this emotion somehow being related to modernism is strange. Are we to fear the Lord? Yes. Are we to fear unreality, the principalities and powers, and sin? Well, not exactly. What you are really saying here is that those who see this modern understanding and push for the female diaconate for what it is are in fact “fundamentalist” (or some such) and misappropriating the Tradition in an moralistic way. This is frankly intellectually lazy and even uncharitable on your part. You have work to do if your going to square your desire for a female diaconate with the full implications of “Follow me”…

If the Church wanted to do that, then she would just recognize the civil divorce and wouldn’t bother with impediments and annulments.

Oh, no, the church needs a fig leaf. They are indeed recognizing civil divorce in practice while insisting they were always right to oppose it.

Gee, I wonder why they don’t think they suddenly became “illegitimate” when their parents got civilly divorced?

That’s pretty obvious. A divorce ends a marriage that did exist. An annullment proclaims that there never was a marriage, so that a person who was never married (by fiat) can marry while the person they thought they were married to, but it turns out they weren’t, is still living.

Some of your argument makes sense… in a way that only accentuates the hypocrisy of Catholic resort to annullment.

the only way a small minority like gay people could wield such outsize power is if they had plenty of allies and the broad support of the society at large

Jefferson Smith is blinded by his own world view again. Raskolnik’s point is precisely that if they are rude and arrogant enough, the minority of gays might LOSE their allies and the broad support of society at large. And, human foibles being what they are, without any initiative from Raskolnik, or even his approval, the result might be a good deal of spontaneous violence.

S.J.: “Henry VIII failed to get a divorce because Catherine of Aragon’s nephew was the Pope’s primary military protector.”

An annulment isn’t a divorce. Henry couldn’t get a divorce or annulment because he had already appealed to the pope to remove the only impediment that existed, so that he could marry Catherine in the first place (she was related to him by marriage to his dead brother). Thus, his marriage to Catherine couldn’t be annulled since the only impediment (consanguinity by marriage) had already been removed. Those are the actual facts, with don’t jive with your scenario.

JonF: “The political situation (re: the Italian Wars) was the reason Clement had to turn Henry down. The canon law faculties of all the universities of Europe all agreed that Hebry had the better case given existing precedent.”

Henry based his petition for an annulment on one argument only: that the papacy had not the authority to grant a dispensation to allow a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow, since (he contended) such marriages violated “the Law of God” (and not merely “the Law of the Church”); and thus, that in granting such a dispensation in 1503 it had acted ultra vires. Since the papacy had been granting such dispensations for nearly 200 years by this time, such a argument was going no where.

Cardinal Wolsey wanted to base Henry’s case on a different issue. Catherine declared on oath when the matter of the validity of her marriage first arose that she had been a virgin when she married Henry, which is to say, she was declaring that her first marriage to Henry’s deceased elder brother, Prince Arthur, had never been consummated. (Henry allowed others to argue on his behalf that it had been consummated, but always refused to declare under oath that it had been consummated.)

This is relevant to the argument, because the impediment which required dispensing in the case of a publicly celebrated but not consummated marriage was the “impediment of public honesty,” a minor impediment, easily and often dispensed; for a consummated marriage, however, it was the greater impediment of “consanguinity” (which, since it involved an “in-law” kinship, would today be termed “affinity”). The dispensation which King Henry VII of England and King Ferdinand II of Aragon had obtained from Pope Julius II in December 1503 to permit the marriage, however, dispensed the couple from the impediment of consanguinity/affinity. Wolsey’s proposal was to argue that Henry and Ferdinand had sought and obtained the wrong sort of dispensation, and that the marriage therefore was, and always had been, invalid.

Henry rejected Wolsey’s proposal. We don’t know why. In any case, it now appears that Wolsey’s proposed argument may have fared no better, since (as Henry Ansgar Kelly, the author of The Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII (1976), the most cogent study of all four of Henry’s “matrimonial trials”) demonstrates, by 1500 the “Canon Law doctrine” that a dispensation from a greater impediment automatically carries with it dispensations from any and all lesser impediments had long since prevailed at Rome. So from a Roman perspective the 1503 dispensation was unimpeachably valid.

As to the canvassing of European universities on the question, most of them opined that such a marriage as that of Henry and Catherine was “against divine law,” so long as the pervious marriage of Arthur and Catherine had been consummated – a significant qualification – and some of these went on to opine that the impediment so created could not be removed by a papal dispensation, while others did not express an opinion on this aspect of the question. The Theological Faculty of the University of Angers concluded that because of the papal dispensation the marriage of Henry and Catherine was undoubtedly valid, whether or not the pervious marriage of Arthur and Catherine had been consummated, while the Faculty of Canon and Civil Law of that same university concluded that if the marriage of Arthur and Catherine had been consummated, then the impediment created thereby to a marriage of Henry and Catherine was absolute, not subject to a papal dispensation, but it did not opine on what would be the case if that earlier marriage had not been consummated. Even Cambridge and Oxford, after much browbeating, would only opine that it was “more probable than not” that it was “against divine law” for a man to marry his brother’s widow if the previous marriage had been consummated.

JonF states that “popes gave out annulments like candy to rulers back in those days.” I think that I would be reluctant to accept such a claim without numerical evidence. But even if it were true, rulers seeking marital annulments would have to provide canonically plausible reasons as part of their annulment petitions; it was not the papacy’s business to come up with reasons on their behalf. Perhaps the most scandalous successful annulment of that time was that of King Louis XII of France to his first wife, Jeanne de Valois, in 1498. Louis claimed that the marriage was invalid because (1) he was coerced into it, (2) that the marriage had never been consummated (because of the “deformity” of Jeanne’s body, and because of witchcraft). Jeanne fiercely contested the supposed lack of consummation, as well as the implicit accusation of practicing witchcraft. Pope Alexander VI granted the annulment solely on the basis of “lack of consent” on the part of Louis at the time of their 1476 marriage (when Louis had been aged about 14).

It is probable that the pope granted the annulment for political reasons, but Louis XII alleged a plausible cause, lack of consent, whereas Henry’s petition, based as it was on the claim that the papacy lacked the authority to grant such a dispensation as it had, in fact, granted in 1503, was entirely without a reason that would be taken seriously by Rome.

Kelly’s book discusses four matrimonial cases: Henry’s case in Rome for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (resolved in Catherine’s favor, and in favor of the validity of the marriage, in March 1534); Henry’s case with Archbishop Cranmer for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (resolved in Henry’s favor, and in favor of the invalidity of the marriage, in May 1533); Henry’s case with Archbishop Cranmer for the annulment of his marriage to Anne Boleyn (resolved in Henry’s favor, and in favor of the invalidity of the marriage, in May 1536); and Henry’s case with Archbishop Cranmer for the annulment of his marriage to Anne of Cleves (resolved in Henry’s favor, and in favor of the invalidity of the marriage, in July 1540). It is amusing to read how, to meet the exigencies these last two cases, the definition of marriage in English Law was altered to make the “giving of consent” rather than subsequent consummation the essence of a valid marriage, and then altered again to make it consummation.

There were those, of course, such as St. John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, one of Catherine of Aragon’s champions, and later executed for refusing to accept Henry VIII as “Supreme Head on Earth under Christ of the Church of England,” who argued that the Pope possessed the authority to dispense even from matters of Divine Law, not merely Church Law, so that the marriage of Henry and Catherine was valid even if, arguendo, it contravened Divine Law.

How could I have forgotten to mention that at the very same time that Henry was seeking an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, using an argument that the papacy could never have admitted, he was a the same time (1) criticizing his older sister, Margaret, the widowed Queen of Scots, for seeking an annulment of her second marriage, to Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus (she got the annulment) and (2) seeking a papal dispensation to allow him to marry, should he ever be in a position to marry, any woman with the sister of whom he may have had carnal relations – an obvious, if veiled, reference to his inamorata Anne Boleyn, whose sister Mary Boleyn has been the kings mistress for about three years in the early 1520s. The pope, pathetically eager to please Henry, granted him the dispensation.

Raskolnik’s point is precisely that if they are rude and arrogant enough, the minority of gays might LOSE their allies and the broad support of society at large. And, human foibles being what they are, without any initiative from Raskolnik, or even his approval, the result might be a good deal of spontaneous violence.

Seriously, this is what we’re arguing about here? The possibility that gay people might act with such total disregard for their own political position, that they might take measures that alienate everyone who might defend them, and therefore might expose themselves to genocidal attacks from people Raskolnik sympathizes with but isn’t speaking for, people who somehow won’t be deterred by the laws against mass murder? Really?

Yeah, OK, I’ll take that bet. Where do I put the money down? I’m as eager to get rich as the next guy.

Me: “Gee, I wonder why they don’t think they suddenly became ‘illegitimate’ when their parents got civilly divorced? Maybe it’s because most people know that legitimacy is the status of children born to parents who were legally married to each other at the time of the child’s birth or were conceived before the parents obtained a legal divorce. An annulment doesn’t change the fact the parents were LEGALLY MARRIED according to civil law before they got a legal, civil divorce. An annulment says nothing about legal, civil marriages – it’s about a licit, sacramental marriage.”

S.J.: That’s pretty obvious. A divorce ends a marriage that did exist. An annullment proclaims that there never was a marriage, so that a person who was never married (by fiat) can marry while the person they thought they were married to, but it turns out they weren’t, is still living. Some of your argument makes sense… in a way that only accentuates the hypocrisy of Catholic resort to annullment.”

You have not demonstrated any such “hypocrisy” – you have only demonstrated an erroneous understanding of both divorce and annulments, and by the lack of precision in your language, a failure to recognize the necessary distinctions between legal, (a State requirement for marriage), and between valid, and sacramental (Church requirements for marriage). Thus, any “hypocrisy” is merely a function of your erroneous understanding and failure to make necessary distinctions, and says nothing about annulments.

Though I’m seriously doubting you even wish to understand annulments, let my try to add some precision to your statements to illustrate why your statements don’t demonstrate any “hypocrisy.”

1). You say “a divorce ends a marriage that did exist.” In fact, a divorce ends a LEGAL marriage that did exist, which is strictly a State matter; a divorce does not end a valid, sacramental marriage (nor does it make any such claim to) – which is entirely a Church matter.

2). You say “an annulment proclaims there never was a marriage…”. In fact, an annulment declares the marriage, THOUGH IT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN LEGAL, was never valid and sacramental because of one or more impediments that were present at the time the couple said “I do.” Validity and sacramentality are strictly a Church matter, not under the purview of the State; annulments do NOT declare there never was a LEGAL marriage (in fact, they presume the marriage’s legality), because legality is a purview of the State.

So, far from an annulment declaring “there never was a [legal] marriage,” the Church PRESUMES the couple’s marriage was legal, since all Catholics must obey the civil laws of the land in which they live. Since most civil governments require marriages to meet their legal requirements, no one can say “I do” in a Catholic Church unless they have first jumped through the State’s legal requirement hoops. And since an annulment doesn’t say “there never was a [legal] marriage,” but actually presumes it, an annulment can never make children “illegitimate.”

Thus, to state your argument more accurately: “A divorce ends a LEGAL marriage that did exist, but is now dissolved by the State, and has no effect on valid and sacramental marriages as the Church understands them. An annulment declares that, though there was a LEGAL marriage which has now been dissolved by the State, there never was a valid and sacramental marriage because of the presence of one or more impediments, so that a person who was never validly and sacramentally married MAY contract a valid, sacramental marriage as long as no impediments exist, and as long as they make sure the marriage is legally sanctioned by the State, while the person they were once but no longer legally, and never validly and sacramentally married to, is still living.”

I see no “hypocrisy” here. Though I do see a lot of disorder as a result of a poor understanding of Catholic marriage and annulments, secular notions of marriage, civil divorce, and the distinction between State (legal) and Church (valid and sacramental) requirements for marriage. I often wish that “separation between church and state” could mean that the State would stay out of Catholic marriages entirely, specifically by not requiring Catholics to fulfill “legal” requirements for marriage according to the State. That way, mistaken notions that a LEGAL divorce also dissolves a valid sacramental marriage wouldn’t be as prevalent as they are, and probably wouldn’t exist at all.

JonF: “Theresa, popes gave out annulments like candy to rulers back in those days.”

I don’t know about annulments but I thinks it’s certainly true that the impediments of being closely related by blood (consanguinity), and being closely related by marriage (which William Tighe above rightly points out is now termed “affinity”), were a problem for royalty especially, as their pool of marriageable candidates was much smaller than for non-royals. So it’s no surprise that appeals to Rome from the ruling class for dispensations from such impediments were common.

But how many of those royals who requested dispensations so they could marry – and have a valid, sacramental marriage – turned around years later, after not getting their desired male “heir and a spare,” and were lusting after a younger woman, tried to claim their marriage was not valid after all? That the Pope was “wrong” in dispensing that impediment between the couple of being closely related by marriage?

I think only Henry VIII fits that bill. So you can claim Henry’s request for an annulment was turned down for “political” reasons, but the fact remains – he received a dispensation to remove the impediment so he could marry Catherine, which left no question their marriage was valid and sacramental. And the Pope was never going to agree that it was “wrong” to grant the dispensation, thus rendering their marriage invalid. If that were the case, then all those other dispensations from consanguinity and affinity impediments that had been dispensed for royalty for hundreds of years, were also “wrong” and those royal marriages would also be rendered invalid. This fact cannot be ignored because it strikes at the very heart of Catholic doctrines on marriage – yet it always seems to be among those who want to see some “political” motivation on the pope’s part.

Thanks for this illuminating information (and I’m glad you pointed out that “consanguinity by marriage” is called “affinity”).

I’m pretty sure it was your review of “Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor” by Eamon Duffy that got me to finally buy the book (along with his “The Stripping of the Altars”). So thanks for that, too!

rulers seeking marital annulments would have to provide canonically plausible reasons as part of their annulment petitions

“Plausible reasons” is the fig leaf of every despotism masquerading as rule of law, every tyranny masquerading as republican government, every arbitrary and capricious exercise of will masquerading as justice. There is always a “plausible reason.”